Also, there's a thought: How different does British Policing look ITTL? Organisation, Equipment, attitudes etc.
You kinda already had that with Straw Dogs IOTL (the Spaghetti Western, I mean), which was very controversial even with the censors. Ken Russell would have a very hard time getting his films through the junta ITTL, meaning Women in Love and The Devils just won't happen, and that's for starters. There's an entire British film history that just would not exist, or would have to be relocated elsewhere to make it work. OTOH, Hollywood studios did have British subsidiaries, yet around the late 1960s into the 1970s they started to severely cut back on British films, meaning it would be difficult to get Hollywood interested in making any more - while, at the same time, the Rank Organisation was doing its very best to get out of films as soon as possible in pursuit of money. Now, if Rank started to wind down its film operations in the 1970s (so it could focus on its non-core operations), and EMI was able to up its game, then the British film industry could survive and something like what you're proposing could work. Gaumont-British, for example, could undergo a revival (around the time Nicolas Seydoux was taking over Gaumont père), both as a cinema chain and as a film company, out of the remnants of Rank as would Paramount possibly getting a shot in the arm. Also, Rank's now-former studios would probably go independent and could be open to all sorts of companies, so they wouldn't be exclusive to any one film company and provide an opening for newer independent companies (even the BBC, when not using spare capacity at its own London studios, Broadcasting Houses, and Television Centres). At the same time, there would be British films IOTL that would have to be done elsewhere ITTL (Chariots of Fire is one that comes to mind), which may provide openings elsewhere.Had a goofy thought while watching The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the umpteenth time. With UK economy being largely in the toilet, but having lovely vistas, historic buildings and lots of rolling hills, does Hollywood and mid-budget dealers and wheelers come calling to shoot films in the UK that are not contemporary. Think Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain, where tons of movies get made so long as they are not about local politics or current world affairs to give much needed hard cash and jobs for the locals. We may see a mid range budget War & Peace filmed in Britain as a take that against the Soviet production, or a strain of terrible gangster films about Chicago in the 1920s with parts of London standing in for the town, and perhaps even a UK version of spaghetti westerns.
In terms of organisation, most policing is run provincially, with only specialist units such as counter terrorism being run centrally from the home officeAlso, there's a thought: How different does British Policing look ITTL? Organisation, Equipment, attitudes etc.
Please spanner away, if I didn't want any feedback I'd read this TL to my cat rather than posting it here!This remains a fascinating and well-argued TL.
Trying NOT to put a spanner in the works, I had some time stuck on a train today (don't ask) to muse on the politics of the Junta and the composition of the National Party.
Yes absolutely, whilst Britain's creative industry is significantly weaker than OTL, it is much cheaper to shoot films, so its production industry remains as strong as OTL. World War films are especially popular to film as Britain is the only North European company where it's cheap and legal to shoot. Saving Private Ryan for example was largely shot in Britain.Had a goofy thought while watching The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for the umpteenth time. With UK economy being largely in the toilet, but having lovely vistas, historic buildings and lots of rolling hills, does Hollywood and mid-budget dealers and wheelers come calling to shoot films in the UK that are not contemporary. Think Yugoslavia or Franco's Spain, where tons of movies get made so long as they are not about local politics or current world affairs to give much needed hard cash and jobs for the locals. We may see a mid range budget War & Peace filmed in Britain as a take that against the Soviet production, or a strain of terrible gangster films about Chicago in the 1920s with parts of London standing in for the town, and perhaps even a UK version of spaghetti westerns.
And the big question: Did the Junta cross the Rubicon and arm the rank and file bobbies?In terms of organisation, most policing is run provincially, with only specialist units such as counter terrorism being run centrally from the home office
British policing is generally more militarised, both due to the fact British society is more authoritarian and the long history of political violence and armed groups making policing a lot more dangerous. British police are a lot closer to their OTL American counterparts in this regard.
In terms of attitude most officers, especially those higher up tend to have right wing/pro-national opinions, during the Junta years you had to be a National member to get high up the police force. Lower down bobbies are a bit more mixed politically but years of watching their friends get attacked by red brigade/various separatists has led them to generally leaning more to the right of OTL officers.
Yes they did, I completely forgot to write that!And the big question: Did the Junta cross the Rubicon and arm the rank and file bobbies?
And the big question: Did the Junta cross the Rubicon and arm the rank and file bobbies?
I think that I disagree here. More Armed Response Units I can see. However even the most Right Wing of people are proud of the tradition that the rank and file Bobby is unarmed. It would take a massive armed uprising for that to change and that didn't happen ITTL. IMHO arming the rank and file Bobby would be the fastest way for the Junta to lose even the tacit support it seemed to enjoy from the British Public ITTL.Yes they did, I completely forgot to write that!
I still think a number of Conservatives and Liberals would have refused to have anything to do with Mountbatten or his soldiers. They would be appalled at the sight of Labour MPs being arrested and taken away.Please spanner away, if I didn't want any feedback I'd read this TL to my cat rather than posting it here!
This criticism has been raised before, especially in regards to the Liberals. I'd like to clarify it wasn't that Mountbatten sat down Heath/Thorpe and said "right lads I'm launching a coup on Tuesday you in?" It was more armed soldiers bursting into their parliamentary offices saying "Wilson's a commie spy, we're in charge now, you can either get on board or join Harold on the farm far far away".
Of course some politicians would have taken to the Junta more enthusiastically than others, as you say people like Thatcher and Neave, but in all the chaos of a military coup its hard to say no.
The Wilson Government of this TL, is more radical the OTL, think Wilson the Bevanite rather than Wilson the technocrat, it was precisely because Labour was polling poorly that the Junta believed they had public support to get rid of him.
Powell did join the Junta, seeing it as a necessary evil to prevent the spread of socialism and protect the empire.
I guess my main summary would be coups are scary and chaotic. the only reason many Labour politicians fled abroad or joined resistance groups wasn't because they were braver then their Liberal counterparts, it was because they didn't have a choice, as far as the military was concerned it was a whole party of soviet spies.
It wasn't a straight away thing but as political violence grew, especially over the 70s, and as several officers were murdered, police began to be routinely armed with handguns, especially in "troubled" regions like Merseyside, South Western Scotland and Northern Ireland.I think that I disagree here. More Armed Response Units I can see. However even the most Right Wing of people are proud of the tradition that the rank and file Bobby is unarmed. It would take a massive armed uprising for that to change and that didn't happen ITTL. IMHO arming the rank and file Bobby would be the fastest way for the Junta to lose even the tacit support it seemed to enjoy from the British Public ITTL.
There absolutely was a number of Liberals and Conservatives who opposed the coup, unlike with Labour MPs where the Junta had "proof" they were Soviet spies, they had no justification to arrest dissident Conservative or Liberal MPs, so most were just forcibly retired, like Alec Douglas-Home for example. There was a political plan involving the Junta's allies like Thatcher and Parliament was allowed to keep existing. The Junta justified having no real opposition by stating they had formed a National Government in the face of the Soviet Infiltration Crisis, similar to the National Unity governments of WW2.I still think a number of Conservatives and Liberals would have refused to have anything to do with Mountbatten or his soldiers. They would be appalled at the sight of Labour MPs being arrested and taken away.
The question then becomes, despite what you have said, whether the coup instigators had made any kind of preparatory political plan. It would be so much easier for Mountbatten if Government and indeed Parliament were seen to continue, albeit as a "rump" without the Labour Party. Indeed, allowing a certain level of "legal Opposition" would look good to the wider international community.
This is why, for all Mountbatten might call himself "First Lord" and be the de facto Head of State, the role of Head of Government is less clear. Would Mountbatten ask Powell to form a new administration in the aftermath of the coup?
As an example, I can't see Mountbatten wanting National to be the sole arbiter of power at local level so I suspect "Independents", "Residents" and the like would still exist on Parish, District and County Councils for example even if Labour Councillors were removed.
I assume the National Party was that attempt to put some political legitimacy on the coup. There might be contested elections at local level if not national.
Legally then, the Liberals (possibly) are banned and the Conservatives wind up the party voluntarily and join National.
I'm far from convinced the Queen would be a willing participant either - in some ways, she'd be a hostage of Mountbatten and the question is whether she would be compelled to abdicate in favour of Charles - the new young boy-king under the spell of his Uncle Louis. He might be a very different man in this reality but I can't believe he'd be anything other than appalled once the repressive nature of the Junta becomes clear. Perhaps the key relationship is between Mountbatten and Philip.
It's hard to see the Monarchy's public standing as being anything other than much reduced with the return of democracy and there would be plenty arguing for a further severe restriction of royal power and patronage let alone abolition.
There was some free market reforms under the Junta administration, especially when Hill-Norton rose to power as he was generally more pro-free market then Mountbatten. Many of the free-marketeers would go on to from the backbone of the reformist wing of National, wanting to see the country liberalise in order to attract more business and gain EU membership. Similar to the Cameroons and Orange Bookers of OTL they are socially and economically liberal.The problem is we know by 2005, according to the Americans, the UK economy is still in a 60s/70s model. I can only assume the radical reforms enacted by Thatcher in OTL were blocked by Mountbatten and Hill-Norton so the question I have is wouldn't the free marketeers, at some point, have parted company with the Junta and formed an opposition group.
That would only have left the more technocratic elements such as Lawson until the arrival of the next generation of political leaders who would have filled the vacuum.
The peak of repression and human rights abuses was in the early days of the Junta, so most the worst offenders were dead. As for living officials it depends on the severity of the crime and seniority of the position, very few were actually prosecuted with most "choosing" to retire.Was there some sort of 'Pact of Forgetting' during the Transition? Did most parties agree not to prosecute the Junta's human rights abuses in return for democratization?